Quotes of the day

posted at 8:31 pm on May 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

The recent news about the FBI’s seizure of the phone and email records of Fox News employees, including James Rosen, calls into question whether the federal government is meeting its constitutional obligation to preserve and protect a free press in the United States. We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime. I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it. The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.

***

The Obama administration already has pursued more criminal leak investigations than all of its predecessors. There is a worrisome trend here, also recently evident in the government’s pursuit of Associated Press telephone records in a different leak investigation. Yes, the government must have secrets in order to function. But overclassification is so rampant that to criminalize the disclosure of all secret information would come close to paralyzing the flow of information.

Perhaps prosecutors failed to read the Justice Department’s policy on this, which declares: “Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter’s responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues.” That statement goes back four decades. The Obama administration should recommit to its spirit.

***

ED HENRY: Nobody has said anything like that, but what I find most interesting is when I was covering the Bush administration and asking very similar questions of Dana Perino and the late Tony Snow before that, I had a lot of my colleagues in private saying things like, you know, sort of cheering me on. Then when I was at Fox covering the Obama administration, it can get a little bit lonely sometimes.

People don’t necessarily think – and when I say cheer you on in the Bush administration, I didn’t mean necessarily that it was partisan or that they were saying “Let’s go after the administration.” It’s just, when you’re in the front row at the White House Briefing Room, you’re supposed to be challenging authority. Whether it’s Republican, Democrat, Independent you’re supposed to be taking on power asking tough questions. They’re not always going to like those questions, but that’s why we’re there. If you’re not going to ask tough questions, just get the heck out of the way.

And so I do find it interesting now that it does seem like a growing number of people are pressing the administration, and I think that’s healthy. I don’t think that anybody should be attacking the administration. I don’t think anybody should be going overboard. But if we’re going to be sitting there in the Briefing Room, let’s not be a bunch of lemmings. Let’s actually stand up and ask tough questions. If the administration has answers to them, great, move on to the next story. But if their answers keep changing, you better keep asking them the questions over and over.”

***

I understand that professional journalists are on the front lines of the First Amendment’s free-press clause. But many elite outlets and journalism schools foster a guild mentality that sees journalism as a priestly caste deserving of special privileges. That’s why editorial boards love campaign-finance restrictions: They don’t like editorial competition from outside their ranks. Such elitism never made sense, but it’s particularly idiotic at a moment when technology — Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Vine, etc. — is democratizing political speech.

The second problem is that the First Amendment is about more than the press. In public discussion, First Amendment “experts” and “watchdogs” are really scholars and activists specializing in the little slice dedicated to the press. The Newseum, a gaudy palace in the nation’s capital celebrating the news industry, ostentatiously reprints the entire First Amendment on its facade. But if the curators of the Newseum are much interested in the free exercise of religion or the rights of the people peaceably to assemble, I’ve seen no evidence of it…

More than 50 news organizations (Reuters, Gannett, the New York Times, and so on) signed a letter protesting the AP subpoenas, and of course journalism guilds like the Society of Professional Journalists are using the subpoenas to agitate on behalf of the Free Flow of Information Act—and for the same reason guilds always lobby the government for special privileges. The act will go a long way toward establishing a government-sanctioned journalistic class. There will be, on the one hand, approved reporters who are immune to certain kinds of governmental inquiry, and, on the other hand, everyone else, those less exalted citizens who, faced with the same governmental inquiry, would just have to suck it up. The act is a classic restraint of trade, protecting favored journalists from the pressure of competitors who lack the proper credential…

Our guess is that Schumer’s act won’t go anywhere, precisely because its support among legislators is a panicked response to a jarring event, and its support from the president, a much cooler customer, is an expedient, a mere gesture. Yet the act’s revival, however hopeless and fleeting, is worth following. It has exposed yet again the self-aggrandizing pose of the establishment press—the instinct of Reuters and Gannett and the rest to confuse the interests of their own industry with a flourishing First Amendment. Trust us: If Gannett and Reuters went toes-up tomorrow, the First Amendment wouldn’t notice.

***

I’ve always considered the relationship between Barack Obama and the Media to be a lot less genuine than is commonly believed: there’s no real emotional connection on the corporate* level. Barack Obama has always approached the Media with a certain inherent cynical contempt that only got more and more brazen as the years went on and nobody reacted to never being given press conferences and seeing local media be punished for non-flattering coverage and having reporters stuffed in closets and whatnot. And, for its part… the Media as a corporate entity likes Barack Obama the way that I like a rib-eye steak. They loved reporting his rise; they loved celebrating his victories; they love narrating his travails; and they will absolutely love chronicling his fall. And once they’re done with all of that, the Media will write sad, brave little pieces about the endgame for the latest iteration of the Camelot myth – and never explain that they themselves helped set up that scenario, because it’s one of their favorite stories. One that they will revisit, just as soon as they can.

So what explains the media’s abstemiousness when facing such glaring examples of dissembling, intimidation, and abuse of power? Three things. The first is journalistic enchantment with Barack Obama that began for some in 2004, for many others in 2008, and has never really gone away. When they look at the president and his top advisers, they see a reflection of their own background, education, and sympathies—and sometimes they see their former colleagues and even family members. The media therefore give the administration the presumption of good faith. If scandals did occur on Obama’s watch, it was simply because he wasn’t as engaged as he should have been.

A second reason is rooted in the attitude many journalists have toward Barack Obama’s political opponents. They judge Obama well because they view his critics with contempt, which is why journalists are working so hard to make these scandals about GOP partisanship and overreach. Why else would the New York Times use a headline that reads: “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On”?

A third explanation is that the vast majority of journalists are highly sympathetic to a large federal government, and they know where these scandals, if pursued vigorously, will lead—to a further deepening distrust of government. A new Fox News poll shows that more than two-thirds of voters feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. Journalists are aware that these scandals have the potential to deal a devastating blow to their progressive ideology, which is why they will downplay these stories as much as they can.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

– 99% of the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor?
– 99% of the Nazis did not kill Jews or Gypsies, or invade Poland?
– 99% of the Communists did not engage in Stalin’s or Mao’s purges?
– 99% of the Germans killed in Dresden had never bombed England?
– 99% of the Italians did not invade Ethiopia?
– 99% of the Iranians did not occupy the US embassy in Teheran?
– 99% of the Al Qaeda membership did not fly airplanes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon?

We see Britain’s foolish PM Cameron making the typical foolish Western politician statement after the murder of the young British soldier (and let’s not forget he is just following in the path of nonsense about Islam blazed by our own President Bush),

“This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

No, Mr. Prime Minister. Everything in Islam justifies this truly dreadful act and so many more. That is why the “99%” cannot condemn, isolate, or punish the murderers. That violence, that “extremism” is Islam; that is the real item. We need to deal with that hard and unpleasant fact. Islam has not gone through an enlightenment, and what “reformation” has taken place has moved it backwards, ever deeper into the thinking prevalent in the dark ages and places from whence it came.

Yes, I “sing”……used to do so well – I was in a choir for 4 years, too……in most of the band I was in – including the one where I was the only person of my ethnic persuasion (white), I ended up singing because no one else wanted to…..That was Wrong – particularly in the band where i was the only white person……

@Jackie — I’m really sorry I missed your exit. You sort of floated in and out, and things seemed a little chaotic. Sincerely. Night, graceful Jackie. :) –lol, and about my nose: I think I hyperventilated. But let’s never talk about that.

Tough questions? “Why, Pres. Obama, did you insist on putting the FBI, a renegade tax-collecting agency with no over-site, in charge of Obamacare?

How much money, Pres. Obama, did you plan on saving with the aggressive use of Death panels–and will their be partisan death panel quotas or directives about limiting costs as the main criterion? If not, can we now receive copies of the protective structure that prevents such from happening anyway?

“The New York Times reports the Department of Justice investigated national security leaks given to Times reporter David Sanger over his story last year about the Stuxnet virus by pulling all the email and phone records of government officials who communicated with the reporter. Last summer, Sanger reported the U.S. helped develop the Stuxnet virus and used it to attack Iran, becoming the first country to carry out a sustained cyber attack with the intent of destroying another country’s infrastructure. The was some hoopla and a hullaballoo about leaks and DOJ investigations, the Associated Press case, and now a year later we’re finding out just how far things went…

The Times’ Ethan Bronner, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane report the FBI requested for any phone and email logs from the White House, the Defense Department and other “intelligence agencies” that showed any contact between employees and Sanger. It does not appear they went so far as to seize Sanger’s telephone records or emails, as they did with the Associates Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen. They at least got creative this time. Instead of looking at his communication records, they looked at the communications between him and every government employee by looking on their end…

The Times report does paint a very detailed picture of how far the Justice Department goes with these investigations, even before they get into the legally and morally questionable practice of subpoenaing a reporters’ email and phone records. As a result of the intense scrutiny, the Times says some sources are starting to clam up:

Some officials are now declining to take calls from certain reporters, concerned that any contact may lead to investigation. Some complain of being taken from their offices to endure uncomfortable questioning. And the government officials typically must pay for lawyers themselves, unlike reporters for large news organizations whose companies provide legal representation.

The intense investigation into Sanger is a little confusing. There were discussions when the story came out about how it seemed the White House may have leaked the story. Or, at the very least, they liked it. It showed the President taking action against Iran during election season. Sanger told Gawker’s John Cook the White didn’t protest the story being released. The White House didn’t actually leak the story, Sanger said, but they didn’t fight him about it either. The investigation into the Stuxnet leak was announced the same day as the AP investigation…”

“Federal employee union wants members to keep health plan rather than adopt Obamacare

The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) opposes legislation (H.R. 1780) that will push federal employees out of the FEHBP and into the insurance exchanges established under Obamacare. Ironic? If it isn’t good enough for the civil service, why is it good enough for the American public?

So who is the NTEU? Since 1938, NTEU has been driven by the principle that every federal employee should be treated with dignity and respect. In that time, NTEU has grown to represent some 150,000 bargaining unit employees in 31 federal agencies and departments.

The body of the form letter the NTEU is providing its members:

I am a federal employee and one of your constituents. I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

H.R. 1780 would put federal employees in a special class where they would be prohibited from receiving health insurance through their employer. It would treat federal employees differently from state and local government employees and most employees of large private sector companies who receive health insurance benefits through their employer. The primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to provide a marketplace for the sale and purchase of health insurance for those who do not have such coverage – not to take coverage away from employees who already receive it through their employers.

work hard and am proud of the services that I provide to your constituents every day. One of the main benefits I receive as a federal employee is the ability to purchase health insurance coverage through the FEHBP with an employer contribution towards those benefits. Please let me know your views on this legislation. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Anti,Williamg,Axe-
thx for the tune fest! was a good time.
Finally caught up..
Thx for the ones I hadn’t heard before!
AntiC..your like the Spin Master..wowz..you can
spit them out! You had me all over. :)
xo